6 ms·

I think that whole thing was a bit overblown. RHEL is free for individuals. When I need the stability of a server OS, I'd rather just use the real thing.

mattl 3y ago
As I understand it, if you exercise your rights to distribute the RHEL source code, Red Hat may terminate your gratis license.
- ungamedplayer 3y ago
  Link to where this was said by rh?
  - mogwire 3y ago
    It’s in the EULA. They don’t deny it and it’s their right. The problem is RMS and all the people supporting FOSS and the GPL say Red Hat, and any other company, are well with in their rights to have that clause. And this causes people, who didn’t pay for RHEL, won’t pay for Rocky or Alma or any other clone to hate a company they never supported.
    - worthless-trash 3y ago
      https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Red_Hat_GPLv2-Based_EULA_20191118.pdf https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Red_Hat_GPLv2-Based_EULA_201... Are you sure ?
      - mogwire 3y ago
        https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix_1_Global_English_20230309.pdf https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix_1_Global_English_20... Unauthorized Use of Subscription Services. Any unauthorized use of the Subscription Services is a material breach of the Agreement. Unauthorized use of the Subscription Services includes: [...] (d) using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software
        worthless-trash 3y ago
        IANAL but Subscription services in this case abusing Red Hats CDN/Support, not the software.
- mogwire 3y ago
  Correct because it’s free if you agree to the terms. Amazing concept. It’s like if you let me in your house, let me use your stuff, and then you ask me not to break something and then I break something and you kick me out and I get upset.
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    Bad analogy, but let's go along with it. The open source license already says you can go into the house and do whatever you want, including breaking something and kicking you out. Your additional instruction to not break something goes against the rights initially granted. To make it worse, one is covered by copyright law and the other by business contract law.

mattl 3y ago

As I understand it, if you exercise your rights to distribute the RHEL source code, Red Hat may terminate your gratis license.

ungamedplayer 3y ago
Link to where this was said by rh?
- mogwire 3y ago
  It’s in the EULA. They don’t deny it and it’s their right. The problem is RMS and all the people supporting FOSS and the GPL say Red Hat, and any other company, are well with in their rights to have that clause. And this causes people, who didn’t pay for RHEL, won’t pay for Rocky or Alma or any other clone to hate a company they never supported.
  - worthless-trash 3y ago
    https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Red_Hat_GPLv2-Based_EULA_20191118.pdf https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Red_Hat_GPLv2-Based_EULA_201... Are you sure ?
    - mogwire 3y ago
      https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix_1_Global_English_20230309.pdf https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix_1_Global_English_20... Unauthorized Use of Subscription Services. Any unauthorized use of the Subscription Services is a material breach of the Agreement. Unauthorized use of the Subscription Services includes: [...] (d) using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software
      - worthless-trash 3y ago
        IANAL but Subscription services in this case abusing Red Hats CDN/Support, not the software.
mogwire 3y ago
Correct because it’s free if you agree to the terms. Amazing concept. It’s like if you let me in your house, let me use your stuff, and then you ask me not to break something and then I break something and you kick me out and I get upset.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  Bad analogy, but let's go along with it. The open source license already says you can go into the house and do whatever you want, including breaking something and kicking you out. Your additional instruction to not break something goes against the rights initially granted. To make it worse, one is covered by copyright law and the other by business contract law.